Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail From: nocTifer Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick,alt.satanism,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,talk.euthanasia Subject: Satanism, Hermeticism, and Ritual Value (was Independence and Ritual Form (was Magick in Theory and ...) Followup-To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick,alt.satanism,alt.politics.satanism,alt.religion.satanism Organization: Sonoma Interconnect,Santa Rosa,CA(us),http://www.sonic.net Lines: 769 Sender: yronwode@sonic.net Message-ID: <9p0bs2$o12@bolt.sonic.net> References: <01c12ccc$12983500$d8865f18@federalist> <3B8ACB09.5CEA@Xtra.co.nz> <9o0ct5$vmh@bolt.sonic.net> <01c13e31$5d614560$d8865f18@federalist> <9ou7ms$803@bolt.sonic.net> <01c14738$688657e0$d8865f18@federalist> Reply-To: nagasiva@yronwode.com X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:14:13 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.224.36 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1001632453 208.201.224.36 (Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:14:13 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:14:13 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:29644 alt.magick:266908 alt.pagan.magick:30249 alt.satanism:188736 alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic:32112 talk.euthanasia:15109 50010927 VI! om Hail Satan! 333: >>>> also the incentive behind much of Crowleys' construction of >>>> his Gnostic Catholic Mass, which has been probably correctly >>>> called a 'Black Mass' by LaVeyan interpretation of this phrase "Blazin' Tommy D." : >>> I can recall LeVey was saying that people at a black mass consume >>> blood, defecation, urine, &c.to show as a tribute to Satan how pathetic >>> human beings are, weak helpless animals wallowing around in defecation, >>> fucking each other like a big wild scat party free for all. "Blazin' Tommy D." : >You mean you don't do this at your Mass? Why I thought everyone did. >I no longer have two books of LeVey. One was his Bible and another a book >that went with it containing spells, rituals, &c. "The Satanic Rituals" is the latter, yes. I don't do masses, generally, being a more solitary type and more prone to simple worship of Kali in Her various forms. >> some quote in particular? "The Satanic Bible" has much more >> creative and constructive things to say about what constitutes >> a "Black Mass" that have very little to do with either "showing a >> tribute to Satan" apparently your recall was about how LaVey was describing the various sources (Roman Catholic or anti-RC) as to what a Black Mass contains in specific. LaVey expanded this as an individual example of decondi- tioning rituals generally, without regard for absolute context. >Why then would you enter into a pact? >What is your valuable consideration? What is the quid pro quo? we're quickly entering into the realm of religion here, rather than magic, so I'm setting followups appropriately and cross-posting to Satanist forums. why a person would enter into a pact with Satan is a complex question and depends on a few factors: a) who or what Satan is for those who are inverso-Christians, Satan represents the alternative to their essentually dualistic cosmology and theology. for those who are Satanists, Satan might be an image, a fictional or mythologized character out of a play or story or legend (e.g. Shaw's plays, Twain's text, or some favoured Luciferian modern sci-fi along the lines of Piers Anthony). 'interacting' in any way with said character would take the shape of an interior mental drama, presumably at least entertaining if not somehow affecting the individual engaging in it. to me, Satan is wild nature -- interior and exterior. that which is outside our control and conforms to what some ecologists and Platonists have called 'First Nature' (prior to being manipulated by humans). examples include tornados, wild turkeys, and pristine pools in state parks. b) what a pact includes pacts extend from 'covenants' or 'testaments' between nonphysical entities and their worshippers to appeasings and mutual aid agreements between same for coincident aims. pacts with Satan have traditionally included statements of dedication and at least a signature written in blood. the tales of such pacts usually have something Christian included which affirms relegation of the individual's "soul" to the control of Satan (this being the main purpose of the Christian Adversary -- competition with the God for souls). sometimes this even includes the signature of the devil or demon involved! very few in the Satanist community have either understood Satan to be more than a concept or a bogey or seen any kind of value in the Blood Pact. I am relatively unique in this regard (and this was one of the reasons I found value in it -- because I enjoy being a pioneer and trend-setter). what my pact includes is a statement to the effect that what Satan (wild nature) gets out of me is a dedication of my time and energies (my entirety) to the cause of Hir defense and what I get in return is the satiation of desire (essentially a mystical result, but it also has materialistic and hedonistic value). c) what the expected results (if any) there might be inverso-Christians expect power and fame, knowledge and/or some kind of position of authority in the Realm Infernal, if not merely in the few years they have allotted their agreed compensation prior to turning over their "soul" to the control of the anti-God, apparently out of vengeance at having been mishandled by the God's agents on earth. many LaVeyan Satanists would probably expect very little other than some kind of social reprobation or shock-value for their pact with some peculiar fictional character. I don't expect results, but think that an application of the principles of Jungian and general transpersonal psychology set a sound foundation for an alliance with the Shadow, while there are incredibly important selfish and altruistic reasons to ally oneself with wild nature generally. > (in whom most LaVeyan Satanists do NOT believe) or "showing how > pathetic human beings are", >Then why denounce the existence of G_d if we are in his image? methinks you're talking about inverso-Christians here or those Satanists who haven't yet reconciled their anti-Christian feelings in a manner which is conducive to doing more than railing after the Head of the Presumed Cosmic Hierarchy. many Satanists don't believe in any sort of "God" or even "god", being hard and fast atheists or truly agnostic and finding no evidence to support this being's existence. the 'if we are in his (ha!) image' is just Judeochristian cosmology which is seldom shared by Satanists outside this inverso-Christian set (a decided minority amongst Satanists, especially if we are talking about LaVeyan Satanists -- there are many other kinds, inclusive of independents like me). >Are we in our own image? Did we create ourselves? Why was anyone >ever interested in such things? Aren't you? it depends on how seriously I'm taking the text from which you are drawing this metaphysical claim. I usually understand all that as *poetry* and do not believe the text of Genesis literally, though I've had many conversations with people who do take it somewhat literally (there are good files online explaining the logical repercussions of taking ALL of it literally which go contrary to most believing Christian methods and beliefs). I don't require an absolute Creation startpoint for the universe and the First Cause Fallacy is deconstructable using basic logic and about ten minutes of your time, even bringing in Big Bangs. >> which is contrary to the notion of exalting human experience devoid >> of impinging social conditioning. >I don't know what this means. What I described is contrary to . . . >empirical knowledge without . . . "Social conditioning" what do you mean, >"social conditioning"? the idea, not originated by LaVey, is that nondomesticated animals and humans who are younger than the age of socialization are in some measure "virtuous" or "sacred" and that this is why they should not be either condemned for their actions or sacrificed for the pleasure of adults who have been trained and 'educated' into believing what we do. the fact that LaVey supports these notions put him at odds with Blood Libel lies. in fact, the better expositions of what Satanists call 'Black Magick' include a challenging to social rules and training, releasing pent-up inhibitions, broadening what should be considered 'natural (and in general nonviolent) human behaviour'). subjects like masturbation and the ability to ingest the substances we choose, engage activities with other consenting adults as we choose, express in art what we choose, are common in Thelemic and Satanist communities. >>> Howling like >>> animals and the like I don't see that in the way the Gnostic Mass is >>> written, or any similarity with Thelema but the Mas is undoubtedly >>> blasphemous in Xtian terms. >> >> I remember occasional Gnostic Masses culminating in orgies, at >> least so I was told. >I don't see any necessity for something like that. you might not, but some apparently do or did. cf. Gnostic Agape rites. >It would appear to be contrary to the discipline of having any sort of >a Mass in the first place. it hasn't always BEEN a discipline. sometimes it's been a requirement (as for Roman Catholic families forcing their children into religion), sometimes it is a counter-measure, as for those who invert their childhood rituals for the purpose of discharging their emotional angst about them and letting them go so they won't be so obsessed with them. >A Black Mass is a desecration, sometimes the mass described is supposed to be a TRAVESTY OF THE RITES, and usually this is a demonization, a condemnation scheme used to oppress religious minorities and cast into discredit those who have histories of association with controversial symbolism. Christianity *itself* started this way (with its overt cannibalistic and death- oriented themes, combined with exclusivity and opposition to syncretism). >the Gnostic Mass isn't but I suppose it could be interpreted that way. depends on what you think desecration includes. certainly the focus on the *negative* symbols of the Book of the Revelation of St. John and its construction by 'The Beast 666' indicates desecration of a marked and longstanding character. his use of a Christian mass for his base seems to indicate perversion, at worst. >> this doesn't seem too far from the notion of Gnostic Agape Feasts >> as imagined at least by historians or detractors. > >If you want to go that route you could say the same about Black Masses >by the description I suggested. You're the Satanist surely you know. orgies and the sublimation of sexual juices and activities aren't about desecration except for those who don't like (especially group) sexual acts. it is not my understanding that Gnostic Agape Feasts included the consumption of noxious substances, if that is what you are getting at. even so, some Gnostics are depicted as inverso- Christians attempting to 'get to the world of the Adversary' through the act of perpetual sin, or of deconditioning themselves from any notions of the sacred or the profane by engaging the latter with gusto. >>> Would it offend Thelemites if I discussed that here? >> >> that doesn't really seem important (if it offends them). I would >> suggest that true Thelemites will not be offended by anything you >> discuss in abstract, as compared to personal insults. ;> >cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuute:) I'm quite serious. true Thelemites are not part of any particular culture, may be completely ignorant of anything Crowleyan or even Rabelaisian (upon whom Crowley based his 'Thelemic' notions). the true Thelemite is one who identifies hir will and abides it with consistency. that will tends not to (by my observation) include offense to the words of others unless there is something to be gained in the taking of the offense (as to instruct, to change the course of the medium of expression, or to express emotional feeling -- compared with merely parrotting some moral platitude or conforming to the social mores of the day, playing the victim). >>> From what I've read, AC was merely streamlining the rituals. >> >> 'Thelemicizing' is what I understood him to be doing to them, which >> over time meant 'putting them into a perspective compatible with >> Crowley's favoured, pseudoegyptophilic, syncretic and self-focused >> religion' to which some have fallen prey contrary to the presumed >> value on self-will and independence one might otherwise associate >> with 'Thelema' and 'Thelemic principles' stated elsewhere. > I don't agree with that but it's too much work to explain. perhaps you could say what sources give you reason to disagree. >>> tell. I mean what sort of lineage existed previous to the GD? >>> The principle and instrument is the same. All of these things are >>> disciplines so it's only reasonable to presume such commonalties. >> >> I'm not aware of the similarity of either principles or instruments >> between Hermetics like Crowley and ancient Egyptians or Grecians. > >The instrument in dance is your body which functions according to >training. What else is there? Do you all have some sort of electronic >gizmo cap you put on your head or something? in ceremonial magic there are a variety of ceremonial, linguistic, dramatic, and theoretical tools which may be used, combined with any number of magical weapons, tools, etc., some of which surely have been used for as long as magic existed. it isn't all as basic as the human body, however, and some of it is quite novel, even when pretending to anciente artes. >> same for the Theosophists and Golden Dawn members. from what I can >> see they are fairly modern in principle and motivation and quite >> innovative and deceptive about their instruments (they either used >> the ceremonialism of their predecessors or created what they used, >> even when they called it 'received' from a god or a secret fraline). >> corrections welcome. >Well that's a very good point. You don't know. It's precisely the >point I wished/willed to invoke. If there is/was no instrument other than >the body (which is academic) in ceremonial magic as we are discussing there was and is much more than that. in Egytian magic they used hieroglyphs, from what I can tell, in a magical way that is lost on Hermetic mages, for example. >and there were ceremonies of their predecessors what were these >ceremonies who were their predecessors how far back does this go? >May they be traced back to anything with any accuracy? None. in some cases, yes. comparisons between what is passed off as ancient and what is known today of Egyptology or Grecology is a good way to start. the next step would be trying to find some kind of *continuity*, which is a different matter and one which troubles Neopagans precisely because they, like many Hermetics, are really attempted *revivals* rather than carrying on some oh-so-exalted ancient religiomagical system. >Revelations were used to fill the interstices. Are followers to >believe (a) that these are divine inspirations? or (b) revelations of >intuition forged from knowledge stored and assimilated by the mind from >practice. my advice is to believe little and test out whatever you plan to use. this seems to be the advice of Crowley (cf. "The Book of Lies") and LaVey (cf. his "Satanic Bible" and his criticism of stupidity). >Whatever ceremonies and rituals existed were >devised by the Golden Dawn, so what makes them sacred or even efficacious >than anything Crowley devised? you'd have to posit the end toward which this efficaciousness was aimed. inasmuch as they were mystical, I don't know enough about the various individuals who used them to say with any certitude that their ritual activities had the effect they desired to achieve (mostly mystical). >No one was/is really in any position to know except Crowley. Correct? I'm not convinced he was sufficiently aware of anything to make this kind of assessment either (because of his egotism and myopia). he might have had intellectual access, but his perceptual abilities locally don't strike me as extremely insightful. >Apparently the Temple of Set is based upon some revelation Michael >Aquino had? "The Book of Coming Forth By Night", if memory serves. it is occasionally posted against the copyright owner's permission to alt.satanism and the Temple sets off to request that archivists eliminate it from their caches (I have acceded to date). it is supposed to be a communication to him from Set. compare Crowley's "Book of the Law", Judaism's "Pentateuch" of Moses, or Islam's "Qur'an". >So in that regard Crowley did nothing more or less than what the >Golden Dawn did.... I think it is fair to say he was a variation on the Mathers/Regardie/? Golden Dawn, yes. Fortune makes this point in describing her unity with their "system". I don't see that this necessarily connects with the Egyptianism which is often their preferred mode, however. >...If no principles are in these peoples heads than what are they >doing . . . experiments? depends, some see it this way, some probably think of it as a kind of shamanic or religiomystical practice without any overt attempt to consider it scientific (i.e. predominantly artistic). >So where are their rules for experiments? this is a VERY important question to ask. it gets to the basics of ceremonial magic of the Hermetic type, and it probably extends to the limits of my understanding of the technology represented. it requires a clear conception of the cosmological presuppositions of these magicians and what they expected to achieve. you'll note that I am not taking up an answer of it here, but will, if I have time, start another thread for it elsewhere. >Obviously Crowley >and Mathers had some idea what they were doing. They didn't just get the >idea one day to go to the British Museum and search for the sorts of >manuscripts Mathers came up with. So they were dealings with principles and >theories 1st before any sorts of rituals were thought out, planned or >executed. Just like anything else. People have too much of this leader >mentality, we have to do what someone else did, what somebody else said. for clues, cf. The Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor, the Fraternitas Saturni, and a variety of qabalistic and ceremonialist authors from Papus (Encausse) and Levi (Constant) to Pico della Mirandolla and Albert Pike (Scottish Rite). the trip into an understanding of this subject will probably take you into Protestant territory in terms of theology, and humanistic (often French) principles of mystical pursuit that depose an external 'God' to which one must make obeisance. it also draws from Solomonic magic under which one must supposedly shroud oneself in one's God and Angelic Servants. >So what is so different about what these >particular humans did with their bodies than what dancers do with ours >other than the latter are far more established and evolved. I'm not sure that the assertion you make here about the latter are true. >Unless of course you have proof to the contrary. Even a mere suggestion >would do. What is so difficult to understand? I think I've provided a broadly-based response and hope that this will incite greater and more diverse discussion on the subject (of which I have but meager study in comparison to some of my Hermetic kindred). >> 1) many magicians don't care about "free will" or will of any type. > >So they let some greater force lead them? not necessarily. they just might not assume these essentially Schopenhauerian axioms. >> 2) the particulars of ritual are not always to 'appease' or please; >> some view the formulae of ceremonial magic as scientific principles >> or mechanisms that, if properly engaged (cf. Crowley's "Magick in >> Theory and Practice" and in particular his theorems, found online), >> will yield the proper result. >Who says what's proper? terminological quibble. 'proper' here means 'required in order to effect the change'. >Crowley? And you follow him. dunno where you got this. I think you are insufficiently schooled in the material you're intending to critique here. instead of continuing this criticism (which I might myself engage were in your place ;>), I suggest that you at least review Crowley's theorems in this file: http://www.luckymojo.com/crowley/004mitapintro.txt and perhaps offer up some criticism of their illogic or contra- dictions to your experience of either scientific (empirical) or artistic (subjective) principles. >Look at the results not the man. easy for *you* to say. where these mystics are concerned the results *are* the man or men. what is left of them now is just their art and the reflections on these men by themselves and others. >The Golden Dawn petered out, Correct? I'm not clear on that one. it still seems to be surviving in a variety of ways. perhaps this was just your example. >Who else would there have been to offer these things to the >world. There would have been no Church of Satan. I'm not sure this is true. I don't think that LaVey and his CoS required a Golden Dawn or even occultism to have initiated their activities. >You would have no Pact. my pact is more aligned with a re-interpretation of Blood Libel and dark pagan alliance with the natural world than some kind of transpersonal mystical pursuit a la Golden Dawn. the bulk of what I value in the GD and later is taken from Agrippa, who was long before any of us and appears to have summarized many of those before him (i.e. he didn't 'create' it so much as present it). the inspiration I have had regarding this pact results from a study of many sources on the character of 'the devil' and of devils generally, understanding them to be "demonized" and condemned by an arrogant and exploitative culture out of touch with reality. >I don't see how you can criticize that. It's like some clerk saying >I think such and such is a shitty actor. But what did the clerk >ever do? Did they ever even read lines or do a screen test? in my case, I've engaged what I find valuable in mystical disciplines but not necessarily ceremonialist in character (more shamanic, more simplistic, meditation-oriented, some Indian body-manipulation in breath and relaxation yogic things, and some applications of the principles of global mysticism as I discovered it in texts and as presented to me by the mystics themselves -- zazen, mantra-recitation, concentrated attention at candle-flames, etc.). I've spent some time around mystics who had some supposed 'results' from their work, and I think I got a good sense of what was considered to be conventional success, both from a personal and a more abstracted perspective. perhaps this answers your question. >> press a lever, push on the exact right >> Magical Link and the result you wanted will occur, whether one is >> 'pure of faith' or not. >You mean like crossing your eyes and holding your index fingers >slightly apart pointing at the other about a foot in front of your eyes? more like hitting 'send' and seeing your post come up in front of the various forums which are reading this. >> this requires, across the boards, no theism, >> and extends far beyond Hermetic tradition into natural magic (in >> which the Doctrine of Signatures seems to be of uppermost value). > >What is the "doctrine of signatures"? cf. http://www.luckymojo.com/esoteric.html and search on that phrase. you can probably find many pages on the subject via google also. in general it seems to relate the Origination of All and the magical purpose of an item based on its likeness of form to other items (e.g. the similarity between a violet leaf and a heart, the use of such a leaf for magical purposes to inspire love). >> and its status-ladders, offices, >> and social structure. since I'm fair-minded, I wish to defend the >> Hermetic perspective and tradition against your assertions here. >Well you're not being as such because that was not my intention and I >don't see where you derive that idea from. because you questioned its authority, which is extremely valuable to do as a student of any system or one trying to understand it from the outside in pursuit of general understanding. >If Hermetics is based upon serving and pleasing entities that you >don't know exist big premise. from where does this come? I'm not aware that this is really involved, according to those who practice traditional Hermeticism, but I'm willing to learn of it. >why would you choose them before one G_d? who says this is being done? I'm not sure it is, though in some cases the diversity of Hermeticism allows for theology other than monolatry, monotheism, pantheism, or even panentheism. there are, after all, many different 'one God's. a God isn't necessary from what I can see. >Or merely make the whole thing up yourself. yup. >If it's mere curiosity how can you be so serious about it? You make >things up when you dream by associations of memories and images in >your mind. What is the basis of your choice in choosing Satan? Faith? eh? choosing Satan for what? I see Satan suffering and have the kind of compassion described of the saints of the Most Compassionate, therefore I choose to defend those without voices. it seems the most charitable, kind, and humble thing I can do. I do have some vows (of Humility, Charity, etc.) to which I aspire. I'm sure these inform my choices of service. I think it is important to point out that my (rather materialist and hedonistic) perspective is somewhat different than would probably be encoutered amongst conventional Hermetics. as I've said, I'm better classed a dark pagan, just as Poke Runyon, in his identification of (at least some) Goetic demons as pagan gods, is probably best associated with pagans (both of us Neopagans). not all Hermetic-influence or Solomonic ritualists have these interests or find the symbolism or activities valauble. for a watered-down version of my interests, cf. "The Lorax" by Seuss. >This is the allegory of >the rebellious spirit called Satan or Lucifer, cast to earth as light. >That he shall defy G_d to prove that those created in the image of G_d - >us peoples - are miserable and pathetic beings that are easily duped and >stupid, which is why G_d should love Lucifer rather than people. So what is >the basis of your choice? How could you know any of this is true or not[?] >Faith? you're drawing from a variety of sources here in your understanding of this predominantly Christian cosmology. the Book of Enoch, misinterpretation of the Book of Isaiah ('Lucifer', Venus), and a rejection of the Book of Job (which has Satan as Jehovah's servant) places you with some popular writers of fiction that were not accepted as scripture (Milton predominantly, as well as the Enoch text, with Noah). my research into the character of Satan convinces me that there is value in identifying, as have Levi, Pike, and others, the light-bringer with what I can see behind the fear-based condemnation-scheme (of wild nature). readings in some kinds of Gnosticism also allow insight into this mystery, inclusive of a rejection of the Demiurgos (Jehovah), though I must say I see no necessary First Cause or God, even though I may worship one (Kali). >Yet you doubt someone who studied and devoted his life to this debatable. >and rely upon some other person or force rather than yourself. presupposition on your part. I've addressed this here. >Because you consider humanity inferior to the spirit known as Satan? again, it would behoove you to study more deeply what Satan means to the bulk of Satanists (this varies considerably) if you want to really understand this matter. you can find a number of expressions at: http://www.satanservice.org/smackers.html and compare with the various propaganda asserted elsewhere: http://www.satanservice.org/propaganda.html as I see it, Satan is no more spirit than human souls are. this is a fiction based on a misperception of subjective consciousness and identification of interior experience of the shifting being we may call 'self' with something *other* than the beautiful flesh and nerves of the bodies with which hedonists wisely associate. there is a 'spirit' of adversarialism to unwanted authority and oppressors, and this also is with what Satanists associate the Promethean Satan. humanity's inferiority resides in our species' inability to consider the results of our actions long-term and the sacred quality of all life outside our covetous and exploitational activities. in this we certainly share to an extent with Satan (witness the conventional example of the mold in a dish eating its finite foodsource unto death), but we have the capacity to transcend this and begin functioning in sustainable and wise ways that may be unavailable to other species and thus the travesty is all the more poignant. were our capacity to exploit and consume not assisted by the technology we so foolishly employ to magnify our ignorance, we would be excused for our act, but this skill puts is in an *inferior* position to Satan (wild nature) as I see it. >Doing so is self delusion the allegorical trick and nature of the >Devil's game. :> 'the Devil's game' (in terms of Satan, wild nature) is largely survival, or acting in conformity with the natural rhythms of which humans are only occasionally aware. >You say Blessed Beast instead of Blessed G_d. Why? Whim and caprice? employing my power as a Magus to bless them who need it. thus I also would Hail (through my perception, HEAL) Satan. I assure you that a good deal of my acts are intentional, not whimsy. >I need no middle men. we're dealing with differing cosmological presuppositions here. you're talking about some fantasy "G_d" whom I do not perceive and for which I see no evidence or necessity. at least Satan as I am describing Hir is obvious and evident to all. even according to your religion your God describes the role of human beings as suited for the role of "stewards" of what I am saying is Satan (because the predominantly pastoral culture which likes those texts tends to favour gardens moreso than state parks and uncontrolled regions of natural beauty -- one need only look at the "development" of modern cities to confirm this). >It's much easier that way. The mind is clear. There are no >fear's. What more could anyone ask? sustainability, logic, compassion for nonhuman beings. I don't think this is unreasonable. >> not all Hermetic magicians and mystics base beliefs about the >> degrees/offices/status of mages simply on the say-so of books. some >> have experience and understanding of the nature and transformation >> of consciousness, > > Precisely > >> of which the subjective aspect (the spirit) is >> very important and can be discerned, even if inexpertly or falsely, >> in its gradations and development > > I suppose that's true. ah but typically Hermetics side with other religious in presuming a dualistic "matter-spirit" divide, illogically and untenably, in support of their hierarchial status-system. often this includes an entire cosmology for which the natural world is a kind of disposable 'place through which we are passing, constructed and to be destroyed for our spiritual benefit', a testing ground no more important, due the non-souled entities with which we share space, than rocks. my expression here is in marked CONTRAST with this horrible and exploitational paradigm -- one which I believe is confirmed by my observation of my own living process (I don't see any such things as the 'spirits' and 'souls' or 'atmans' that are imagined by these Hermetics and religious otherwise, and I have redefined in more rational terms the entirety for the benefit of all humans and nonhumans to proceed toward a more harmonious existence. so while you may admit that it is 'true', I doubt that you really understood my implications based on what you've said about Satan, 'G_d', and the other religious issues we're discussing. >> (this is what, incidentally, gives me the chutzpah to criticize Crowley > So now you state a basis. of course, I always did. >> as having abjectly *failed* in >> his mystical endeavours, because the descriptions and examples of >> his interior state in diaries do not conform to the status to which >> he laid claim and as described by others of his ilk). >? Like who? you must ask? as one example, check out Paul Foster Case's "True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order". many Golden Dawn sources associate the Rosicrucian offices (or their Goldawnian derivations) with tarot and Lurianic Tree of Life symbolism (e.g. the Smith-Waite tarot or some variation thereof). >> attending to the level of detail you are describing in magical >> work is important if the results are important to you to achieve. >> whether this includes bell chimes, floor knocks, hand-wringing, >> or sonic conflagrations, the purpose of tending toward a pattern >> might be to intensify the results or adhere to a proven ritual >> formula. >don't believe in this business of knock 3 times here, do several chimes >here thence the genie appear. Sorry. That's not the point of these various >rituals. usually Hermetics don't refer to genies appearing as in "One Thousand and One Nights", no. the closest you're likely to get to that is in goetic evocations, and even many of those who assert the value of this kind of activity don't claim that something appears in the same way that is depicted in games and films (i.e. it is usually described as at least a partly if not wholly interior experience). >If you invoke some spirit that spirit is as you conceive it in >your mind. this is a presupposition that bears discussion elsewhere. whether the character of a spirit will always conform to presuppositions is a subject that has no easy resolution. >Someone gives you a description and a formula you follow it and >if you believe it enough something will appear to you even if it's a sort >of sensation like dreams nightmares, &c. These exercises as to access >faculties we have as humans and are all truly based upon our body in >relation to earth and space and being aware of the various forces around >us. Walk outside in the night when everyone's asleep and all is quiet. Find >the 4 directions. Start at anyone you fancy, exude peace and love through >your being and see if you can move the air. With music you can. Practice >this and your appreciation and understanding of peace and love will grow >and cause you to form different perspectives and attitudes towards living. >That's about it. Anything else is essentially based upon what you believe >yourself or what you learn from someone else and how readily you accept it. thanks for reflecting on how you believe it works. it sounds like you think it is all just a bunch of self-convincing and that people are rather infinitely malleable. I'm not so sure this is true. >...There are several steps written in a manual that cannot be >exercised the way they are written. After you practice the entire manual >you empirically figure out the proper execution of the steps and began to >realize how all of the exercise fit together. Some people want to know >everything all at once. And they can't.... sure, where there are blinds of the instructions are for some reason uncommunicable in the medium (not enough skill on the part of the teacher in the medium, not enough dimensionality because it requires demonstration, etc.). >> but perhaps the impossibility of following the >> method was an indicator that nontextual education (as from a >> direct instructor who'd studied with a part of the tradition) >> was essential to getting to the meat of the data and a clear >> communication of the method or art itself. >No that aspect is after the dancer knows the execution. Then the >Master shows the proper tempos, timings &c. I should say Maestro, it does >have a different meaning. I think I understand the rhythm or style beyond form. yes, this is quite valuable and sometimes only learnable directly from the master. it is no reason to presume everyone a master until otherwise proven, however, and clear demonstrations to the contrary should not be overlooked. blessed beast! nocTifer -- emailed replies may be posted ----- "sa avidya ya vimuktaye" ----- "that which liberates is ignorance" http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html hoodoo catalogue: send postal address to catalogues@luckymojo.com